Adeyanju defends Sowore calling Tinubu ‘criminal’ as defence opens case in cyberbullying trial

Mr Adeyanju appeared in court as Mr Sowore's first defence witness in a cyberbullying trial focusing on Mr Sowore's social media posts from last year that called President Tinubu a criminal.

Publisher of Sahara Reporters and activist Omoyele Sowore on Monday opened his defence before the Federal High Court in Abuja in his alleged cyberbullying trial over social media posts in which he described President Bola Tinubu as a “criminal.”

The first defence witness, Deji Adeyanju, a lawyer widely known for his public affairs commentaries, defended Mr Sowore’s remark about Mr Tinubu in his testimony before the trial judge, Mohammed Umar.

He said Mr Tinubu had publicly stated that citizens had the right to criticise and “even insult him” as part of democratic governance.

He also told the court that the president urged the judiciary “not to allow itself to become an instrument of oppression” against government critics.

According to the witness, President Tinubu made those remarks before Mr Sowore published the social media posts that gave rise to the charges against him.

However, the judge adjourned the proceedings until 13 July after the defence informed the court that it required a television to play video recordings containing the president’s remarks.

The SSS filed the cybercrime charges against Mr Sowore over his X and Facebook posts last year in which he referred to President Tinubu as “a criminal.”

The prosecution closed its case in March after calling its sole witness.

On 8 May, Mr Umar dismissed Mr Sowore’s no-case submission and directed him to open his defence.

Mr Sowore, who at one point represented himself after his legal team withdrew from the case, subsequently filed an application asking the judge to withdraw from the trial due to alleged bias.

The judge fixed 15 June for ruling on the application. However, the court did not sit on that date despite Mr Sowore’s appearance.

According to the defence, Mr Sowore later informed court officials that he would travel to Lagos and requested that any new hearing date be fixed in July.

However, the judge set the hearing for 16 June. When Mr Sowore failed to appear, the court revoked his bail and issued a bench warrant for his arrest. Mr Sowore was later arrested, and his lawyers subsequently filed an application challenging the revocation of his bail.

On 30 June, while ruling on the application, which the prosecution opposed, Judge Umar granted Mr Sowore fresh bail in the sum of N200 million with two sureties.

He subsequently released Mr Sowore to his lawyers and adjourned the case until Monday, 6 July (today), for him to open his defence.

Prosecution raises objection against Adeyanju

When Mr Adeyanju was invited to the witness box to testify as a defence witness on Monday, the prosecution, led by Akinlolu Kehinde, also a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), raised an objection. He said Mr Adeyanju, being a lawyer on record in the matter, could not serve as both counsel and witness.

“I will address that in my final written address and explain why anything the witness says should not be believed,” the prosecutor said.

Responding, Mr Olumide-Fusika told the court that since he assumed conduct of the case, Mr Adeyanju had never announced an appearance as counsel.

“The law is very clear,” he said. The court allowed the witness to testify.

 “During Monday’s proceedings, Mr Sowore’s lawyer, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika, also a SAN.” Should be removed. It is no longer necessary in the story.

What Adeyanju told court about Sowore’s posts

Led in evidence by Mr Olumide-Fusika, Mr Adeyanju told the court that he lives in Wuse II, Abuja, and that he knew Mr Sowore.

He described the defendant as “the publisher of Sahara Reporters, a human rights activist and a former presidential candidate of the African Action Congress (AAC).”

According to him, Mr Sowore was standing trial over allegations that he transmitted electronic messages through X, formerly Twitter, and Facebook, which the prosecution alleged amounted to cyberbullying President Tinubu.

Mr Adeyanju explained that social media platforms primarily serve as spaces for interaction among users.

He said users generally interact with those who follow them or with whom they already have an established connection.

Using his personal Facebook and X accounts as examples, the witness said another user could not simply send him a direct message without first meeting the platform’s requirements, such as becoming a friend or follower where applicable.

He added that he primarily used the platforms to express his views and interact with people who shared similar opinions.

According to him, his social media pages were his “personal virtual home,” where only content he chose to publish became visible to others.

He distinguished between a user’s public social media account and private messaging services.

According to him, X Chat and Facebook Messenger are separate messaging applications that allow private communication between users, unlike public posts made on X or Facebook timelines.

Mr Olumide-Fusika then referred the witness to the court’s ruling of 8 May dismissing Mr Sowore’s no-case submission and asked him to read a portion of that decision.

The witness thereafter testified about public statements made by President Tinubu, which he said affirmed the right of citizens to criticise public office holders and urged the judiciary not to become an instrument for suppressing critics.

Mr Adeyanju told the court that he personally downloaded the videos before 25 August 2025 and gave them to the defence.

To satisfy the requirements for electronic evidence, the witness presented an affidavit of compliance before the court.

The defence subsequently sought to tender the affidavit together with a 2GB flash drive containing the video recordings.

The prosecution did not object and the Judge admitted them as evidence.

Following their admission, Mr Olumide-Fusika informed the court that the defence had reached the stage where the video recordings needed to be played and requested an adjournment so the court could provide a television.

Prosecution lawyer, Mr Kehinde, opposed the request and reiterated that the prosecution had closed its case in March and that the defence ought to have made the necessary arrangements earlier if it intended to play video evidence.

However, the judge noted that providing the facilities required for the hearing was the court’s responsibility, not the parties’.

He therefore adjourned the matter until 13 July for the continuation of the defence after Mr Adeyanju informed the court that he would be unavailable until Friday.

Prosecution pushes for Sowore’s fresh remand

As part of the bail conditions, Mr Sowore was ordered to submit his passport to the Deputy Chief Registrar of the court. The judge also directed that both sureties be verified by the prosecution.

Meanwhile, before Monday’s proceedings ended, Mr Kehinde informed the court that none of the bail conditions imposed on Mr Sowore had been fulfilled.

“There is no sentiment in criminal litigation,” he said.

He urged the court to remand the defendant pending compliance with the bail conditions.

Mr Kehinde also informed the court that Mr Sowore had granted an interview to Arise Television on Friday concerning the case.

Responding, Mr Olumide-Fusika disputed the prosecutor’s claim that the bail conditions had not been met.

He said he believed the court would receive the necessary report before the end of the day.

He also argued that the defence had complied with the court’s directive to produce Mr Sowore following his release.

The defence lawyer further alleged that Mr Kehinde appeared to have “personal issues” with Mr Sowore and questioned why he was insisting on the defendant’s remand.

He added that he was unaware of any Arise Television interview.

The judge clarified that he had not ordered any restriction on Mr Sowore granting media interviews, adding that the court’s interest was Mr Sowore’s compliance with the bail conditions.

The judge said it was necessary to remand Mr Sowore and that the defendant would be released immediately once the bail conditions were fulfilled.

Mr Olumide-Fusika urged the court to give the defendant until the next sitting.

Mr Kehinde insisted that the court had already delivered its ruling on the issue and that, as of Monday, none of the bail conditions had been fulfilled.

He denied harbouring any personal interest against Mr Sowore, adding that he was merely carrying out instructions from his client.

After some moments of reflecting on their arguments, the judge gave the defence until the close of business on Monday to fulfil the bail conditions, after which the court would determine the next course of action.